O Desenvolvimento Histórico-Jurídico no Tratamento das Pessoas com Transtornos Mentais: efeitos da legislação internacional na prática psiquiátrico-legal rio-grandense

Através de resgate do estudo histórico da psiquiatria legal, o presente trabalho procura apontar instrumentos eficazes à modificação positiva das condições de vida dos doentes mentais rio-grandenses. Reconhecendo a rica interface entre direito e psiquiatria, parte-se para metodologia interdisciplinar a partir de método lógico-aristotélico, históricocomparativo, histórico-contextual e bibliográfico. Assim, possibilitou-se compreensãoholística primeira acerca do percurso histórico do tratamento dos doentes mentais no panorama internacional para adentrar-se na análise histórica nacional e estadual. Constatou-se atividade psiquiátrico-legal heterogênea no contexto nacional, destacando-se a rio-grandense, orientada por avançada legislação internacional

Proving Ground Completeness of Resolution by Proof Planning

A lot of the human ability to prove hard mathematical theorems can be ascribedto a problem-specific problem solving know-how. Such knowledge is intrinsicallyincomplete. In order to prove related problems human mathematicians, however,can go beyond the acquired knowledge by adapting their know-how to new relatedproblems. These two aspects, having rich experience and extending it by need, can besimulated in a proof planning framework: the problem-specific reasoning knowledge isrepresented in form of declarative planning operators, called methods; since these aredeclarative, they can be mechanically adapted to new situations by so-called meta-methods. In this contribution we apply this framework to two prominent proofs intheorem proving, first, we present methods for proving the ground completeness ofbinary resolution, which essentially correspond to key lemmata, and then, we showhow these methods can be reused for the proof of the ground completeness of lockresolution

Proving Ground Completeness of Resolution by Proof Planning

A lot of the human ability to prove hard mathematical theorems can be ascribedto a problem-specific problem solving know-how. Such knowledge is intrinsicallyincomplete. In order to prove related problems human mathematicians, however,can go beyond the acquired knowledge by adapting their know-how to new relatedproblems. These two aspects, having rich experience and extending it by need, can besimulated in a proof planning framework: the problem-specific reasoning knowledge isrepresented in form of declarative planning operators, called methods; since these aredeclarative, they can be mechanically adapted to new situations by so-called meta-methods. In this contribution we apply this framework to two prominent proofs intheorem proving, first, we present methods for proving the ground completeness ofbinary resolution, which essentially correspond to key lemmata, and then, we showhow these methods can be reused for the proof of the ground completeness of lockresolution

Planning Mathematical Proofs with Methods

In this article we formally describe a declarative approach for encoding plan operators in proof planning, the so-called methods. The notion of method evolves from the much studied concept tactic and was first used by Bundy. While significant deductive power has been achieved with the planning approach towards automated deduction, the procedural character of the tactic part of methods, however, hinders mechanical modification. Although the strength of a proof planning system largely depends on powerful general procedures which solve a large class of problems, mechanical or even automated modification of methods is nevertheless necessary for at least two reasons. Firstly methods designed for a specific type of problem will never be general enough. For instance, it is very difficult to encode a general method which solves all problems a human mathematician might intuitively consider as a case of homomorphy. Secondly the cognitive ability of adapting existing methods to suit novel situa..

Planning Mathematical Proofs with Methods

In this article we formally describe a declarative approach for encoding plan operatorsin proof planning, the so-called methods. The notion of method evolves from the much studiedconcept tactic and was first used by Bundy. While significant deductive power has been achievedwith the planning approach towards automated deduction, the procedural character of the tacticpart of methods, however, hinders mechanical modification. Although the strength of a proofplanning system largely depends on powerful general procedures which solve a large class ofproblems, mechanical or even automated modification of methods is nevertheless necessary forat least two reasons. Firstly methods designed for a specific type of problem will never begeneral enough. For instance, it is very difficult to encode a general method which solves allproblems a human mathematician might intuitively consider as a case of homomorphy. Secondlythe cognitive ability of adapting existing methods to suit novel situations is a fundamentalpart of human mathematical competence. We believe it is extremely valuable to accountcomputationally for this kind of reasoning.The main part of this article is devoted to a declarative language for encoding methods,composed of a tactic and a specification. The major feature of our approach is that the tacticpart of a method is split into a declarative and a procedural part in order to enable a tractableadaption of methods. The applicability of a method in a planning situation is formulatedin the specification, essentially consisting of an object level formula schema and a meta-levelformula of a declarative constraint language. After setting up our general framework, wemainly concentrate on this constraint language. Furthermore we illustrate how our methodscan be used in a Strips-like planning framework. Finally we briefly illustrate the mechanicalmodification of declaratively encoded methods by so-called meta-methods

Planning Mathematical Proofs with Methods

In this article we formally describe a declarative approach for encoding plan operatorsin proof planning, the so-called methods. The notion of method evolves from the much studiedconcept tactic and was first used by Bundy. While significant deductive power has been achievedwith the planning approach towards automated deduction, the procedural character of the tacticpart of methods, however, hinders mechanical modification. Although the strength of a proofplanning system largely depends on powerful general procedures which solve a large class ofproblems, mechanical or even automated modification of methods is nevertheless necessary forat least two reasons. Firstly methods designed for a specific type of problem will never begeneral enough. For instance, it is very difficult to encode a general method which solves allproblems a human mathematician might intuitively consider as a case of homomorphy. Secondlythe cognitive ability of adapting existing methods to suit novel situations is a fundamentalpart of human mathematical competence. We believe it is extremely valuable to accountcomputationally for this kind of reasoning.The main part of this article is devoted to a declarative language for encoding methods,composed of a tactic and a specification. The major feature of our approach is that the tacticpart of a method is split into a declarative and a procedural part in order to enable a tractableadaption of methods. The applicability of a method in a planning situation is formulatedin the specification, essentially consisting of an object level formula schema and a meta-levelformula of a declarative constraint language. After setting up our general framework, wemainly concentrate on this constraint language. Furthermore we illustrate how our methodscan be used in a Strips-like planning framework. Finally we briefly illustrate the mechanicalmodification of declaratively encoded methods by so-called meta-methods

História do tratamento do câncer gástrico: os pioneiros, os equívocos iniciais e os marcos de referência atuais = History of gastric cancer treatment: the pioneers, early misconceptions and the current guidelines

Objetivos: O adenocarcinoma gástrico permanece como uma das principais causas de morte por câncer, com taxas de sobrevida em cinco anos de apenas 20-25%. A ressecção cirúrgica é a única opção terapêutica que pode possibilitar a cura nos pacientes afetados por essa neoplasia. O objetivo deste estudo é revisar os principais aspectos históricos da progressão do conhecimento sobre o tratamento dessa enfermidade. Fonte de dados: Revisão bibliográfica através do PubMed. Foram analisados artigos selecionados sobre a história, evolução e tratamentos do câncer de estômago. Síntese dos dados: A gastrectomia é um procedimento cirúrgico desafiador que requer um elevado nível de perícia cirúrgica. Este procedimento evoluiu constantemente ao longo dos anos através dos esforços meticulosos de um grande número de cirurgiões antes de chegar a seu estado atual. Esta revisão analisa algumas das limitações iniciais e equívocos cometidos, destacando os marcos iniciais que lançaram as bases desse procedimento. Conclusões: A ressecção completa do tumor permanece o tratamento padrão sempre que possível. Dependendo da localização e estágio do tumor, pode ser indicada a gastrectomia parcial ou total. O benefício em longo prazo da linfadenectomia sistemática já está comprovado em estudos prospectivos randomizados. Estratégias de tratamento multimodal, incluindo quimioterapia e/ou radioterapia, podem melhorar ainda mais o controle local e regional do tumor e diminuir as taxas de metástases sistêmica